Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

> But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users?

I love that there are people carrying this torch, I just wish the language wasn't so over the top hyperbolic. That would make it easier to join the effort for me.

Framing it as a right & wrong moral issue seems ironically Disney-esque in it's inability to acknowledge the gray areas and realities of life. This entire article complains about restricting freedoms without once mentioning funding of any kind.

People building non-free software aren't setting out to put chains on people and restrict all freedoms, they're trying to make money, and we all need to make money.

I don't know how to write free software all day long and feed my family, and I'd put money on most businesses feeling the same way. If I did know how, I would absolutely do it.

Who has experience based and practical advice on funding models that businesses could reasonably adopt for releasing their software as free?

It depends on what you're expecting by "release".

In my career, 90%+ of the code I've written is Free Software (specifically, LGPL or AGPL licensed). That said, most of it is not publicly available - it's custom code written for clients, who could - but for the most part don't - release it publicly. That complies with rms' philosophy, but is it enough for you?

If not, then you have fewer choices - mostly a position on a company like Mozilla, Canonical, Sentry, etc. Finally, some people live on patronage (by companies and/or individuals), but this is generally hard to achieve.

> In my career, 90%+ of the code I've written is Free Software (specifically, LGPL or AGPL licensed). That said, most of it is not publicly available - it's custom code written for clients, who could - but for the most part don't - release it publicly. That complies with rms' philosophy, but is it enough for you?

Hmm, yeah interesting point! I think I would put this in one of those gray areas I was talking about. I've written code for clients, but in those cases the client decided whether and how to license the code, not me.

I'd probably suggest that if neither you nor your clients release the code then it doesn't really fit Stallman's definition of Free Software. Business decisions to not release it publicly are exactly what he's talking about when he claims the code is limiting freedom of the users, without source they can't modify the code.

The piece feels a bit like Stallman against the world though, he's not only alienating most of the people who would like to write Free Software while by day getting paid to write code for their employer, but he's also pitting himself against many of the people who freely release their source too.

> If not, then you have fewer choices..., but this is generally hard to achieve.

Yeah, exactly right. Those few companies have managed to eke out the funding model that perhaps depends on B2B relationships or support contracts, and not direct software sales.

Well, the user in this case is the client who ordered the code. If you become the user, you have all the rights listed in the (A/L/)GPL. I think that's more to the point of Free Software, not to liberate all code that has ever been written for someone but to liberate the code that you have to run for some reason.

That would create problems in legal terms about what "distribution" means.

By definition in GPL, internal use is not distribution.

How to define internal is up to lawyers.

I'd probably suggest that if neither you nor your clients release the code then it doesn't really fit Stallman's definition of Free Software. Business decisions to not release it publicly are exactly what he's talking about when he claims the code is limiting freedom of the users, without source they can't modify the code.

They don't release the code nor the software itself, as it is for internal use, not for redistribution. That's in accordance with the philosophy:

"Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users; however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no wrong to others."

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...

I'm trying to think of how this situation works. And the only one I could come up with is that you're writing software that your clients use internally. Or I guess the software could produce something that your clients would end up selling to their clients.

The biggest "risk" is where you interpret the user of the software. At what level does the rights to view, modify and redistribute go away? Does your client have to make source available to its clients?

Yes, the vast majority is internal; most of our clients are not software companies, they only use software to provide other services/products.

This is one of the holes closed by Affero version of the GPL. Where internal GPL code is used as a server and uses a documented non-GPL protocol and is not distributed.

You need to make it a business where you could allow 99% of your users to pay you $0 and still survive. Meaning a small segment of your users pay for 'enterprise' or advanced features to sustain your business.

Support/services is not a scalable business model.

There have been a few companies that had a moderately successful open source project, but saw their business fold.

If you are producing free software that demonstrates that you are an expert in the domain, you may then be able to leverage that reputation to gain related consulting work. This might be helping other companies solve similar problems in their software, ensuring their product works with yours, or customising your software to meet their needs.

> I love that there are people carrying this torch, I just wish the language wasn't so over the top hyperbolic. That would make it easier to join the effort for me.

Manifestos often have hyperbolic language. See the communist manifesto or a declaration of the independence of cyberspace[1]. That is usually what gets people excited about a movement.

[1] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

I'm starting to think it's a mistake to take on too lukewarm of a movement to try to get widespread appeal. I know this is basically Godwin's law now, but see the difference between Clinton and Trump's (or even Sanders') campaigns.

The word manifesto is something you don't want to be associated with. If what you wrote is considered a manifesto, you are probably off base, or simply crazy.

Why? According to wikipedia, a manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government.

Some manifestos are crazy, some are innocent, some are useful. Mozilla has a manifesto [1]. Apple has published a manifesto before [2]. And Debian [3]. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto against nuclear weapons [4]. Even the UN Universal declaration of human rights is a manifesto [5], or even similar documents like the US declaration of independence.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/designed-by-apple-in-californ... [3] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ap-manife... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%E2%80%93Einstein_Manif... [5] http://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf

I suppose that's a good approach if your aim is conformism and bland mediocrity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com